It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Raptor Report from Red Flag 2007/1

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Weapons systems to counter the Raptor's electronic invisibility will soon be made, and deployed within this decade.


I also have some swampland for sale, interested? The Raptor's stealth will never truly be negated so long as we rely on EM waves. It could be reduced in effectiveness but it will always be better than having a conventional airframe. Think IR and Cell Phones and super duper wonder systems? Think again, they have their own limitations and problems, but, eh, what do I or the US military know...




posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Where do you see the Raptor in 10 years WestPoint?

I see it in target locks @ Red Flag.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I'll bite.

What is going to be locking up a Raptor in ten years at Red Flag? You've made the claim that the stealth advantage will be overcome, but so far this has been simply a statement. What specific mechanism is going to overcome the Raptor's stealth advantage?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   
On detecting the F-22.


What is the biggest problem with longer ranged radar, and networked radar systems?


Yeap - that'll be processing power to sort the wheat from the chaff.



Now... what keeps doubling (at least) every 18 months?

Yeap, you've guessed it... processing power.



See where this is going? While the radar detection methods will improve, the F-22's airframe is essentially fixed, apart from some variation in surface treatments.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
While processing power is nice and all, what about other limits to getting close enough to lock an F-22? The simple fact is the F-22 will have off board EA support, datalinks, on-board ESM, and an ISR system that will give it a level of SA in the future NCW environment that no other system can currently match. And at the moment I'm fairly confident that an F-22 with AIM-120 will take out any other in service platform before it gets a "lock", which is the claim that SteveR made (not just detect, but locked. Detection doesn't make a huge lick of difference if you can't actually kill what you have found). The Red Flag report shows there is nothing the US has that can do it. I doubt if there are any Russian systems that can. So, back to my question, what (non-US) platform, in ten years, is going to be able to challenge this?

Edit: Sorry, the second part of the claim was

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Willard856]


Weapons systems to counter the Raptor's electronic invisibility will soon be made, and deployed within this decade. The only thing the Raptor will be good for is engaging third world jets and remaining unharmed


Any details on these weapons?

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Willard856]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Actually the processing power doubling bit is also kind of reached a choke point now. That area will cease to progress unless we start looking at radical new approachs like quantum or biocomputing..



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
While processing power is nice and all, what about other limits to getting close enough to lock an F-22? The simple fact is the F-22 will have off board EA support, datalinks, on-board ESM, and an ISR system that will give it a level of SA in the future NCW environment that no other system can currently match.



And?

With using passive and active systems in tandem, and combining the information, a picture will very quickly be built of exactly where the F-22 is, and a AAM/SAM/DEW will be directed to the spot.

Its all a question of combining information, and utilising it - which is currently limited by processing power.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Actually the processing power doubling bit is also kind of reached a choke point now. That area will cease to progress unless we start looking at radical new approachs like quantum or biocomputing..



Sorry, that is simply not the case.

Intel expect to produce their first 45nm parts before the end of this year (the Penryn core), both AMD and Intel have roadmaps for 32nm between 2008/2009. Both are developing new metal gates for the transistors which improve both current loss and switching speeds.

IBM has also developed DRAM to the point where it can be used for CPU cache, and they claim this effectively doubles CPU speeds immediately.


AMD are also looking to move Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) functions onto the CPU in the not too distant future (as part of the multi core designs - not all cores are the same), the advantage of this being the comparitively enourmous amounts of floating point operations (FPS) a GPU can perform (current GPUs perform around 10 times the number of FPS of the fastest CPUs).



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Sorry Kilcoo, you still haven't answered the question. Which system is going to be able to do this in ten years? And SteveR certainly hasn't answered the question. Which fighter (or UCAV) with which AAM (or even laser system), is going to be able to lock the F-22? Which SAM (and considering the F-22 can defeat most SAMs kinematically other than higher order strategic systems such as SA-20, which will be sorted by other means anyways) do you think will be a threat to it?

Your line of thinking is right, but I think the timeline is out. In twenty years maybe. But not in ten.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:26 AM
link   
All the Anti-F22 people seem to think that an anti-stealth technology will only negate the F-22s stealth. It will negate all stealth (I dont know about plasma stealth) and with stealth gone the F-22 is still the best fighter in the sky, hardly only useful for shooting down third world planes.

It gets to me so much when people start saying "oh, without stealth the F-22 is a crappy plane". Its still the worlds best BVR fighter and one of the best WVR fighters.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
Sorry Kilcoo, you still haven't answered the question. Which system is going to be able to do this in ten years?


That is what I am trying to say, it won't be one system, it will be the combination of several different sources of information. We all know of multi-static radars - it will be an extension of that philosophy.

That can then be datalinked to a missile, its current technology with mid-course updates, so in effect it would be something akin to a ASRH missile, which means the F-22 may not know it has been locked up.



On the anti-F-22 thing - I don't think I've ever said that it is crap, even if its VLO advantage was negated. But, I do have problems with assuming the F-22 will still be able to deliver the massive kill ratios currently expected of it - if its VLO technology was negated.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by Willard856
Sorry Kilcoo, you still haven't answered the question. Which system is going to be able to do this in ten years?


That is what I am trying to say, it won't be one system, it will be the combination of several different sources of information. We all know of multi-static radars - it will be an extension of that philosophy.

That can then be datalinked to a missile, its current technology with mid-course updates, so in effect it would be something akin to a ASRH missile, which means the F-22 may not know it has been locked up.

On the anti-F-22 thing - I don't think I've ever said that it is crap, even if its VLO advantage was negated. But, I do have problems with assuming the F-22 will still be able to deliver the massive kill ratios currently expected of it - if its VLO technology was negated.


So are you saying that this multi static radar systems can be deployed in all theaters? I guess for myself its a question of how many radar sites need to be in an area just to negate the VLO of the 22? Then your also talking about having a production version of a missile that hasn't been overly proven from what I understand. It just sounds to me like in order for this to work there will be a high demand for equitment that can suround a country 360 degrees. its also untested and its not like the US Airforce and friends will just sit by as this new method of detecting is tested..... on what? It just occured to me what would they even test it on? just a question that probably has an anwser its just that alot seems to be assumed in this explination.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by SteveR
Weapons systems to counter the Raptor's electronic invisibility will soon be made, and deployed within this decade.


I also have some swampland for sale, interested? The Raptor's stealth will never truly be negated so long as we rely on EM waves. It could be reduced in effectiveness but it will always be better than having a conventional airframe. Think IR and Cell Phones and super duper wonder systems? Think again, they have their own limitations and problems, but, eh, what do I or the US military know...


Well what do you know? lol
I'm just joking but honestly what do you know about these wonder systems limitations?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Everything is inherently limited, EH. You'd have to be blind to assume that military technology doesn't become obsolete. Where have you been?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
So are you saying that this multi static radar systems can be deployed in all theaters? I guess for myself its a question of how many radar sites need to be in an area just to negate the VLO of the 22? Then your also talking about having a production version of a missile that hasn't been overly proven from what I understand. It just sounds to me like in order for this to work there will be a high demand for equitment that can suround a country 360 degrees. its also untested and its not like the US Airforce and friends will just sit by as this new method of detecting is tested..... on what? It just occured to me what would they even test it on? just a question that probably has an anwser its just that alot seems to be assumed in this explination.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



- I am not limiting it to just radar.

- How many radar recievers, combining the images quick enough to be useful is where increased computational power comes in.

- A production version of what is essentially a SAM missile guided by datalink from the ground...

- It is not like the USAF can do a great deal to the F-22 to lower its radar profile you mean. Thats what I'm getting at, the F-22s RCS is essentially fixed, while detection methods will constantly be improving. Case in point - the F-117, state of the art in the 80s and early 90s, but now?

- Other countries in the world have LO UCAVs, there are also computer simulations etc.




The assumption by many that the F-22 will somehow not be subject to the same never ending technological advancement that has rendered 99.99% of other military equipment obsolete is naive to say the least.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
The assumption by many that the F-22 will somehow not be subject to the same never ending technological advancement that has rendered 99.99% of other military equipment obsolete is naive to say the least.


And I'd say its naive to think that people will sit by as tech moves forward.
I do agree the the RCS of the 22 is fixed but inovation is always a good thing right? whos to say some form of jamming wouldn't render this new tech useless. its just a thought dont rip me apart for it.
SteveR replying to my statement with a one liner doesn't show me anything to back up what you where saying. I'm asking you isn't it silly to put all your eggs in one basket?(sorry for the corny term). I dont think you need to point out that some people on this forum do that to the 22, but I'm arguing that anything that is developed can be countered and then countered again. In a sence its who has the upper hand at the time on conflict and can maintain that.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Everything is inherently limited, EH. You'd have to be blind to assume that military technology doesn't become obsolete. Where have you been?


Frankly I just find that comment only acts as an attack about something that I was trying to prove to you in the first place. your amazing Radar is in your own words "inherently limited". So in a sence thanks for proving my point.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
SteveR, thanks for contributing zilch to the discussion. Next time you make a sweeping statement with little to no evidence (or understanding) feel free not to post...

To get a system to a full level of capability, deployed, and at a stage where an F-22 can be locked, all in ten years, is a stretch IMHO. Even for Russians and Chinese who tend to have a quicker deployment cycle than western nations. And the biggest limitation that Russian and Chinese systems have at the moment is there range.

The ultra long range AAM has been in development for close to 15 years now, with no evidence that they have sorted the guidance problems (including incorporating dual seeker tech as I understand it). AA-12, with its open source inflated ranges, relies on the host radar for initial cueing, and even the top of the line Bars radar doesn't hold a candle to the F-22s radar. Similar problem for the AA-10C. AA-10F is, in my opinion, a waste of time, and not proven to be operationally effective.

Same same for SAMs, the Iraqi's tried to incorporate IR seekers onto RF missiles, and they failed dismally. And this with Russian assistance. And as I said before, the range of SA-20, while impressive, means that other assets will be used to take it out, and the F-22 with it's height and speed advantage can simply overfly most other tactical SAM systems. So, in short, I agree with the premise that a collection of solutions is needed to counter the 22s advantage, I simply don't believe, even with processing power improving, that the F-22 is at risk in 2017.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Not be as affected by? Probably. Able to overfly? Absolutely not.

I think that systems like SA-20 and SA-21 might have to wait until the F-22 is within a few miles to launch at it, but the F-22 definately cant overfly these systems. Thats what gary powers thought before he got hit.

Most tactical, mobile SAMS can hit things 10-50 miles away, and I know the raptor cant fly that high.

I hope I am interpreting you statement correctly, correct me if I'm wrong


[edit on 27-2-2007 by BlackWidow23]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Well what do you know? lol
I'm just joking but honestly what do you know about these wonder systems limitations?


IR pickup is a concern but IR tracking and detection is a far more complicated feat than just using radar which is more straight forward and reliable. For example, depending on where you're looking you have a myriad of IR clutter issues to contend with. It's not constant, depends on terrain type, time of the day (sunlight), type of cloud cover, ambient temps, etc. Atmosphere is a huge factor , i.e. high humidity or clouds. IR can be virtually useless given the right conditions, point is, it's tricky to use. Whereas radar could care less (unless you attempt to jam it) it is pretty consistent in its performance. And just like you can attempt to jam a radar there are a number of ways to counter IR tracking. From head on cooling the jet (via fuel) flying at a certain altitude (well above cloud cover) and certain angle all make it difficult to easily use IR especially when you have no idea how far away or where the Raptor is to begin with.

Also, the problem with IRST is that it is not a feasible volume search tool. In order to acquire a target at long distances over (15~20 miles) it has to use tremendous optical magnification. Using high magnification optics also means that it is has a very narrow field of view. Using IRST it would take about 30 minutes to 3 hours to complete one full detailed and high resolution sweep of a 60x60 degree area in front of the fighter with a rate of 60 fps. And this is all still assuming that atmospheric conditions cooperate which may or may not always be the case.

In other words, IRST is only useful for volume search at close range or for point tracking at longer distances when cued by radar or other EW systems. Once you reduce the effectiveness of the enemy's radar through LO technology and you also implement an effective LPI radar, you also indirectly render the operational effectiveness of any IRST system minimal.

Furthermore IRST doesn't get you range data either, you would need a laser ranger finder for that, which is why some fighters now carry LWR's. Still all being said even with perfect atmospheric conditions, even if you know where your enemy is IR cannot match the performance of modern radars.

As for Celldar, well the systems relies upon being heavily integrated and connected not to mention the fixed targets make mission planners drool. It is highly vulnerable to disruption and destruction not to mention the general feasibility to field and operate such a system over a large area. Range is also an issue, if it warns you only when the enemy is over the target area, well, that might not be enough. Even so it cannot track an LO system, therefore no missile guidance and no data-link to fighters. It may knows something is there and may be able to provide you a given sector but if you cannot track it your pilots will still have to find it on their radar scope. Good luck with that, in the end it might make the job a little more difficult for the enemy but it will not negate their advantage nor will it win you the war.

It's not so easy to counter the F-22 and I like Willard don't think it's feasible right now nor in 10 or even 15 years.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by WestPoint23]




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join